Men: The ultimate unpersons

My career often requires me to rub elbows with the left side of the political spectrum and I've frequently come across misandry so severe, such as female managers stating bluntly in my presence that they'd never hire a man, that if a man acted that way it would have resulted in a mob descending with pitchforks and torches.

As a writer and editor, the language side of this is what I find particularly distressing. If someone says to me "I went to the doctor" and I reply "What did he say?" I'm pilloried as a sexist despite the fact that "doctor" is a male noun and I was merely being grammatical as in saying "The actress went to her room."*

On the other hand, if someone responds "What did she say?" I can be fairly sure that I'm in the presence of Feminist Newspeak. I can understand how craven politicians back in the '70s introduced such linguistic abominations as "flight attendant," "firefighter," and "mail carrier" into government documents, but there was never any reason whatsoever for free men (Not sexist. Just proper English. "Men" is also a term for people.) should go along with such Orwellian constructs in the media, private business, classroom, or high street, I'll never understand.

No, I tell a lie. I do understand. The purpose is to obfuscate meaning and cow people into endorsing Feminist doctrine with every word they utter. It's a dirty little game as old as language itself and about as subtle as if Mr Barack Hussein Obama were to go on television tomorrow and declare that henceforth the official title of "President" would be changed to "Caesar." It's also why I refuse to conform to the totalitarians' diktats and continue to say "fishermen," "brewster," "manned," and, hell, even "man."

And don't get me started on the use of plural pronouns to refer to the singular. I get so angry at that my kidneys hurt.

*At least we're not in the position of the Germans, who say, "The girl picked up its book."