Sarkeesian's Grammar.

Well I'm in an ESL teaching class right now and all I can hear in my head is freaking Anita Sarkeesian screeching about her 'subject/object paradox,' which rule she stole from the grammar one we're talking about today; Sarkeesian is a thief of grammar rules, of money, and of the integrity of society and both male and female sexuality, and as you guys say, a lunatic. The problem is - other than I can't get her valley-girl voice out of my head - that all too many people take her seriously.

Traditional Grammar is the whole <subject> <verb> <object> rule; for example, Michael ate lunch. Sarah wrote a book. Functional Grammar is an extended concept that nuances this, giving dozens of delicate, specific and useful language and tools to describe different types of sentences, actions and so on. It's pretty much needlessly and painfully complicated ESL theory without much practical use.

So why was it invented?

Possibly to deal with feminists like Anita Sarkeesian hijacking the fundamental rules of Traditional Grammar and applying them to the fictional relationships she thinks exist between the sexes.

Sarkeesian actually thinks and teaches that grammatical subjects acting on objects = men oppressing women. I know it's also an ancient philosophical topic, the subject/object problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object_problem) but it seems to me to be a reflection on the very nature of existence. It has nothing to do with Sarkeesian's brand of petty yet deadly feminism, and for her to hijack either the grammar rule, the philosophical staple, or both, is

How does a grammar rule even translate/apply to her gender war? I really don't see the morality, the logic or the point. Unless of course she's created a patriarchy, a conspiracy made up of every single man, woman and child who disagrees with her, whose sole goal in life and in everything they do is to oppress her.