His Eye for Hers

A person who has trouble constructing a vehicle with his bare hands should read the instruction manual. If he is still unable to construct the vehicle he should call his physician. His physician will tell him that he much far more intelligent than his female counterparts, so he shouldn't feel bad.

OH NO! THAT'S SEXIST! YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE USED GENDER SPECIFIC PRONOUNS LIKE THAT! DO YOU HATE WOMEN? YOU MUST BECAUSE YOU ARE A MAN AND YOU USED MALE PRONOUNS! YOU ARE A TERRIBLE SEXIST PERSON! THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD HAVE WORDED IT TO AVOID GENDER SPECIFIC PRONOUNS!

A person who has trouble constructing a vehicle with her bare hands should read the instruction manual. If she is still unable to construct the vehicle she should call her physician. Her physician will tell her that she much far more intelligent than her male counterparts, so she shouldn't feel bad.

Wow, that was crazy. You know, recently there has been a gigantic fuss about the gender specificity of language. I often agree with the fact that gender specific language is not a good thing. I think it is very strange, however, to complain about gender specific language and to draft up a solution which is simply gender specific for the opposite gender. It's basically following the eye for an eye principle, which will never result in equality.

 Whenever I can, I use gender neutral words. Often times, I try to reword sentences. Recently, however, I have started to use the pronoun 'they' as a singular pronoun. As it is now, people object to using 'they' because it is not grammatically correct. I think that it could become grammatically correct if people used it more frequently. It's not commonplace, but hopefully it will become so soon; if it does, we will be able to avoid being gender specific for either gender without having to work to reword sentences. 

Imamurkan

It's my right as a Murkan! I can say what I want on account of i'm a murkan.

Hmm... This is peculiar to me. Why is it that people who live in America tend think that only they are free? They often scream the above lines, which indicates that they are somehow mislead into thinking that only they deserve the freedom to say what they want. Quite frankly, I think it's your right as a person to be able to say what you want. The chance of your birthplace has no relevance to your freedom of speech. In fact, every person is born with the ability to speak their mind. The difference, however, is that the American government simply takes away less freedoms than some, but not all, other governments. The American government does not grant freedom/

Just My Feelings

A: I feel that it's morally acceptable to kill five year old children.
B: Oh my wizard-god! That's terrible! Let me explain why that is wrong.
A: Oh no, don't bother. It's just something that I feel intuitively.
B: Still, I think that maybe you are thinking the wrong thing.
A: I AM NOT THINKING! THESE ARE MY FEELINGS!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
B: (Stage goes dark and A freezes. Light shines on B) It seems that A is communicating their thoughts as feelings in order to prevent other people from challenging their thoughts. Either that or they are lacking any confidence in their own answer, so they try to communicate it in the weakest way they can. What sad times are these when a growing number of people seek to replace 'think' with 'feel;' I wonder why it is that people no longer want to face having their thoughts questioned. Especially as philosophers, they should seek to put their ideas out to the public not hide their thoughts behind the shroud of private and personal emotions and intuitions. Some great philosophy teachers once co-authored a writing checklist (rule 20) where they expressed that people should "never use 'feel' where 'think' will do. I think we ought to follow this wonderful piece of advice. Notice that I do not think we should try to do this; there is do and do not, there is no try.

Disease and Symptom

I think that you are confusing the disease with the symptom again. The disease is the current political (democracy) and economic (capitalism) system; which cannot be treated by operating within the realm of the disease. One of the symptoms of this kind of system is poverty in many places around the world. Micro-financing is working with the current system of capitalism and thus would prove ineffective in curing the disease which, again, is capitalism. This kind of poverty needs democracy and capitalism in order to exist; working within capitalism allows the disease to continue. As an analogy, if a person becomes ill due to exposure to mold, expose to mold will continue his illness.

The disease cannot easily be removed by any short process. It would require most of the world's denizen to come to terms with many concepts which they have been rejecting for their entire lives. One of which is that they deserve to have luxury at the expense of others, and that others who are not great simply are not trying hard enough.