St. Joseph Communications uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.
We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.
I always thought university textbooks were supposed to be objective. An unbiased source of information.
Until my history textbook referred to someone as a “mama’s boy.” Seriously.
According to the textbook, Ibbi-Sin, a king from the Dynasty of Ur, wasn’t just an incompetent ruler. He was “something of a mama’s boy.”
The term “mama’s boy” sounds like a subjective judgement, as opposed to an objective statement of fact. Sure, I know everyone has a bias. Even textbook authors. But I figured that university textbooks should at least appear to be making an attempt at sounding neutral. You know, something more along the lines of ‘attachment disorder’ or ‘parent-child relationship psychosis.’
When I saw that pharse, I was startled. If a history textbook is going to insult someone, I thought they’d call them “inadequate” or “inept.” My textbook is breaking the rules.
That Alexander guy who took over Egypt? A mega-jerk.
Aristotle thought there were only five elements. What a moron!
And Gandhi, whining about human rights and junk. Talk about a cry-ass.