I subscribe to Oxford Dictionaries' (OD) word of the day and today's word is 'herstory'.
The OD's definition is 'history viewed from a female or specifically feminist perspective'.
The OED's entry for 'herstory' has yet to be updated (it dates back to 1993) but the entry is fascinating. The entry advises that 'herstory' occurs between 0.01 and 0.10 times per million words in typical modern English usage and that the word's etymology is a punning alteration of 'history' (fancifully reinterpreted as 'his story', implying that history has in the past been viewed predominantly from the male perspective), with his- replaced by her. The OED's earliest recorded use of the word is 1970 by R. Morgan in Sisterhood is Powerful.
My library offers all members access to the OED for free.
I’m not sure it’s natural, as you say, to treat people who are perceived as different less favourably. You don’t see a baby rejecting somebody, say for example, from a different racial background. I think people learn to act like that because they believe they’re different to other people.
Who is forced into something by laws and rules? You don’t have to follow laws and rules. I don’t. Not the man made laws anyway. I treat those as guidelines for people who don’t want to think for themselves therefore they don’t apply to me so they have no impact on my life whatsoever.
I just checked Amazon for the book and it is too expensive for me at present.
When I start sorting through my books caretwo, I’ll send you my copy if you’re interested. I haven’t read the whole book, it’s not an easy read for me but maybe you will find it easier to read than me and who knows when I’ll get round to reading it so it would be more use in your hands, if you’d like to read it.
That first part was meant as a joke. Obviously not a very funny one.
I realise that new words are made all the time, but the reason for making the word "herstory" was to reflect the fact that, until relatively recently, women were always too busy cooking, cleaning, and having babies for men to have a prominent place in history, and even the women that did have the talent, potential, and spare time to make history were either prevented from doing so, or their contributions were not recorded fairly. You even said so yourself (though not quite in those words).
I was simply commenting that it is a shame that new words need to be invented because the old ones have become offensive in some way (again, not so much with history, but there was an element of inequality in place that prompted someone to come up with the word "herstory").
You're right that a baby isn't racist. Certainly, different types of discrimination are learned in childhood from parents and other adults, and society dictates whether certain behaviours are ok or not, but is discrimination itself learned or natural?
It used to be the case that racism was a fact of life, and it still is in many parts of the world, but then it became not ok to discriminate discriminate based on race (though don't tell that to an American cop). Then it was sexual orientation, but now that's not ok either, in most parts of the world. Now people have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to figure out where they themselves belong in society that sets them apart from another group of people, because all the obvious forms of discrimination are off-limits. Right now, (western) society is just becoming intolerant to discrimination based on religion, but it seems to be the case that neurodiverse people are still fair game. No doubt someday (hopefully soon) it will become not only illegal but uncool (which is more important than what the law says) to discriminate against someone for being autistic. I wonder who will be picked on after that. Some group that represents a small part of the total population, but not so small that a victim cannot be found during the course of a given day.
For a species who doesn't naturally embrace discrimination, we sure do come up with a lot of ways to define dividing lines to set ourselves apart from another group of people, for the apparent sole purpose of treating them like you know what.
I agree that laws are for people with no particular moral compass of their own, and nobody actually obeys the law anyway, but rather acts almost exclusively on the basis of what is socially acceptable or not, in their particular tiny corner of the universe. Luckily for them, that is also how laws are enforced.
If discrimination is so unnatural, why don't they just come up with a law that makes it illegal to be mean to somebody else? That way, ALL forms of discrimination and bullying are covered. But no, nobody thinks that it's even possible for humans to exist without being jerks to each other. I tend to agree.