I agree you should move out of the county. Take Milo with you.
Mark
Such hostility! Where is the ignore button? You should probably change your tag line as well, cause as long as you continue to post in the affirmative position on issues like this there is know sanity. What is next for you, taking the words like: woman and women out of the dictionary because they have word man in them?
Just because those words exist doesn't mean that the school shouldn't be sensitive to the fact that not all kids have parents and neither are they all male/female pairs.
Nor should they be reinforcing the stereotype that they should be hetereosexual couples.
Should a child made to feel not included, as if the child somehow had the choice of parents/guardians?
There once was a time where there was a social stigma attached to being a single parent. Should we put the blame for that on the child as well?
I guess we should just go back to referring to the mentally disabled as retards.
Just because those words exist doesn't mean that the school shouldn't be sensitive to the fact that not all kids have parents and neither are they all male/female pairs.
Nor should they be reinforcing the stereotype that they should be hetereosexual couples.
Should a child made to feel not included, as if the child somehow had the choice of parents/guardians?
There once was a time where there was a social stigma attached to being a single parent. Should we put the blame for that on the child as well?
I guess we should just go back to referring to the mentally disabled as retards.
You think inclusive language, evolving our understanding, and explaining complex social, interpersonal issues that will reduce ignorance, enhance understanding and empathy, and thereby lessen hate and bigotry is a waste of time and money?
Mark
The LOL comes from the notion that terms like Mother or Mr. need to be deemed in appropriate for that to happen. You really can be dense, sometimes.
The idea of children calling adults by their given names is simply bad manners. Lack of respect is NOT evolution.
Just because those words exist doesn't mean that the school shouldn't be sensitive to the fact that not all kids have parents and neither are they all male/female pairs.
But does telling kids that calling their Mom and Dad "Mother" or "Father" is inappropriate not make them "feel bad". It is perfectly acceptable language. Why does one need to be excluded in order for newer terms to be included.
Nor should they be reinforcing the stereotype that they should be hetereosexual couples.
Agreed.
Should a child made to feel not included, as if the child somehow had the choice of parents/guardians?
Nope. Which is why telling kids that terms like Mother and Father are inappropriate is just dumb.
There once was a time where there was a social stigma attached to being a single parent. Should we put the blame for that on the child as well?
I guess we should just go back to referring to the mentally disabled as retards.
I find your use of the descriptor "guys" to be offensive and highly inappropriate. Please refrain from using such terms in the future to avoid giving offense. May I suggest the term "people" as a substitute?
Use a little common sense Milo. If a kid refers to his mom or dad, no one is going to tell the kid that is wrong. But just because a kid refers to their mom doesn't mean a teacher should be assuming that she is a Mrs. Neither should a teacher be making general announcements to go home and tell mom or dad something.
You're a fucking moron (and that is gender nonspecific) if you think that being inclusive somehow excludes others.
-- A poster campaign by an Ontario public school board advises its 15,000-or-so students that it is not appropriate for them to use words such as mother and father, husband and wife, or even Mr. and Mrs.
Instead, the Hastings & Prince Edward District School Board located in Belleville, Ontario, says that students should say "parents/guardians," "partner or spouse," and call adults by their first names rather than say "Mrs. Smith."
How is defining something as "inappropriate" not exclusionary?
My point is not about the intent of the policy, merely the ham-fisted manner in which they seem intent on implementing it.
Simply put, you do not need to make one group feel awkward in order to make another feel better.
Don't much care who's arguing which way but I liken this article to the banning of Merry Christmas and Christmas trees. We have way more important issues in the world.
Found this comment posted about this article:
**********************************
What did you do at the weekend, Johnny?’
‘I played baseball with my male guardian.’
‘And you, Mary?’
‘My female parent took me shopping.’
***********************************
**Note** Johnny does not equate to our JohnnieH..:p
Kinda sums up the stupidity of it all..
I'm all for tolerance, understanding and forgiveness but I'm not in favour of promoting stupidity...
I tried to read the article but I couldn't get past the 'SAY NO TO PORN! BOYCOTT 50 SHADES OF GREY, THE MOVIE!' Banner at the top of the page.
My wife is rereading the books to prepare for the movie. Game of Thrones did nothing for my sex life compared 50 Shades...you know, things a man and a woman do...or woman on woman. I'm not picky...
-- A poster campaign by an Ontario public school board advises its 15,000-or-so students that it is not appropriate for them to use words such as mother and father, husband and wife, or even Mr. and Mrs.
Instead, the Hastings & Prince Edward District School Board located in Belleville, Ontario, says that students should say "parents/guardians," "partner or spouse," and call adults by their first names rather than say "Mrs. Smith."
How is defining something as "inappropriate" not exclusionary?
My point is not about the intent of the policy, merely the ham-fisted manner in which they seem intent on implementing it.
Simply put, you do not need to make one group feel awkward in order to make another feel better.
I think I need a poster telling me it is not appropriate to swear at people so I can feel excluded when I say GFY...
I'm gonna be posting this shit every fucking day in this thread if it keeps becoming "February, let's get angry on the interweb month". Get over the cabin fever folks and let's start being civil to each other.
Instead of quoting an article posted on a right to life website, maybe you should take the time to download and read the posters. Don't be stupid. The intent of the posters is not to tell kids that they shouldn't call their mom and dad, 'mom and dad' but to be sensitive to others, in conversation and in writing. To not perpetuate gender stereotypes through terminology like policeman and fireman. To be careful when using terms like Mr and Mrs.
My grandfathers name was Harry C Schaaf. My grandmother spent her entire life signing her name, Mrs. H. C. Schaaf or Mr. and Mrs. H. C. Schaaf. Terminology is constantly evolving. What was acceptable in the past is no longer the best practice.
imho, i completely understand mark's perspective. sexism (and racism and many other kinds of oppression) are completely ingrained into our cultures and our languages reflect that for sure.
however, i do not agree with this proposed changing of the language to fix this problem. it feels way too much like george orwell 1984 "newspeak" to me. language changes and adapts along with culture. it should not be the other way around.
furthermore, if one were to propose changes to our language to better adapt with the times, i would not be arguing for removing words. i would be arguing for adding more words that can achieve the subtle nuances in our ever-changing culture. for example, i'd be perfectly fine if we added gender neutral pronouns.
imho, i completely understand mark's perspective. sexism (and racism and many other kinds of oppression) are completely ingrained into our cultures and our languages reflect that for sure.
however, i do not agree with this proposed changing of the language to fix this problem. it feels way too much like george orwell 1984 "newspeak" to me. language changes and adapts along with culture. it should not be the other way around.
furthermore, if one were to propose changes to our language to better adapt with the times, i would not be arguing for removing words. i would be arguing for adding more words that can achieve the subtle nuances in our ever-changing culture. for example, i'd be perfectly fine if we added gender neutral pronouns.
Ummm
So you would be okay with phrasing that introduces broader, more inclusive language into our lexicon (aka, what this overall thing is doing with the gender identity / labeling / non-presumptuous traditional phrasing), yet claim the George Orwellian newspeak? Well let me just say that 1984 is the book that I have, far and away, read the most (like, once a year for the last 20 years). The concept of newspeak is one where in the language is removed / refined / redacted to limit the concepts available to people, while this is meant to expand (and, contrary to the theist-fascists) and include a higher understanding.
So you would be okay with phrasing that introduces broader, more inclusive language into our lexicon (aka, what this overall thing is doing with the gender identity / labeling / non-presumptuous traditional phrasing), yet claim the George Orwellian newspeak? Well let me just say that 1984 is the book that I have, far and away, read the most (like, once a year for the last 20 years). The concept of newspeak is one where in the language is removed / refined / redacted to limit the concepts available to people, while this is meant to expand (and, contrary to the theist-fascists) and include a higher understanding.
Fun
Mark
perhaps i misunderstood the article, but it seemed to me that they were outright saying that we should replace sexist or genderist terms with better ones. i got that opinion from the following lines:
A poster campaign by an Ontario public school board advises its 15,000-or-so students that it is not appropriate for them to use words such as mother and father, husband and wife, or even Mr. and Mrs.
and
The poster on gender tells students to avoid all use of the word "man" in conjunction with other descriptors, so they are enjoined to say human beings or people instead of mankind, while chairman, policeman and "manning the display booth" are also forbidden, apparently even if the person referred to is a man.
(my emphasis added obviously)
the article does state that it wants to add new terms that are not sexist but it also states, as we can clearly see, that we should outright stop using these other "sexist" terms.
again, i completely agree that sexism is ingrained in our culture and language, but i do not agree that correcting this problem should come from changing the language (as they try to do in 1984 newspeak - obviously their goal is different but it's the same method of "correcting" culture by changing the language).
i didn't actually mention how i think this change should come about though. i feel that we need a more bottom-up approach starting with the basic education (as opposed to a top-down approach of changing the language - language is a product of culture and not the other way around so it seems silly to correct culture by changing language). we should still be teaching policeman as well as police officer along with teaching how the terms can be loaded with sexism.
i have always argued that there should be a mandatory cultural studies course for high school students (and a philosophy course as well ). they currently try to include it in the english program, but it's done poorly at best. learning how to critically analyze our culture is incredibly important and it amazes me that we don't try to teach our children how to properly wade through our culture and our society. with proper understanding and critical thinking skills, the sexism in our language will (hopefully, ideally) change for the better.
Comments
I agree you should move out of the county. Take Milo with you.
Mark
Such hostility! Where is the ignore button? You should probably change your tag line as well, cause as long as you continue to post in the affirmative position on issues like this there is know sanity. What is next for you, taking the words like: woman and women out of the dictionary because they have word man in them?
Prophet22
Nor should they be reinforcing the stereotype that they should be hetereosexual couples.
Should a child made to feel not included, as if the child somehow had the choice of parents/guardians?
There once was a time where there was a social stigma attached to being a single parent. Should we put the blame for that on the child as well?
I guess we should just go back to referring to the mentally disabled as retards.
This topic is so gay.
I love this post. "Like" isn't enough.
Mark
Hijacking an LOL thread sucks balls. Here's something funny.
Mark
The LOL comes from the notion that terms like Mother or Mr. need to be deemed in appropriate for that to happen. You really can be dense, sometimes.
The idea of children calling adults by their given names is simply bad manners. Lack of respect is NOT evolution.
It certainly is . . .
How can that NOT be an LOL
I find your use of the descriptor "guys" to be offensive and highly inappropriate. Please refrain from using such terms in the future to avoid giving offense. May I suggest the term "people" as a substitute?
You're a fucking moron (and that is gender nonspecific) if you think that being inclusive somehow excludes others.
-- A poster campaign by an Ontario public school board advises its 15,000-or-so students that it is not appropriate for them to use words such as mother and father, husband and wife, or even Mr. and Mrs.
Instead, the Hastings & Prince Edward District School Board located in Belleville, Ontario, says that students should say "parents/guardians," "partner or spouse," and call adults by their first names rather than say "Mrs. Smith."
How is defining something as "inappropriate" not exclusionary?
My point is not about the intent of the policy, merely the ham-fisted manner in which they seem intent on implementing it.
Simply put, you do not need to make one group feel awkward in order to make another feel better.
Found this comment posted about this article:
**********************************
What did you do at the weekend, Johnny?’
‘I played baseball with my male guardian.’
‘And you, Mary?’
‘My female parent took me shopping.’
***********************************
**Note** Johnny does not equate to our JohnnieH..:p
Kinda sums up the stupidity of it all..
I'm all for tolerance, understanding and forgiveness but I'm not in favour of promoting stupidity...
My wife is rereading the books to prepare for the movie. Game of Thrones did nothing for my sex life compared 50 Shades...you know, things a man and a woman do...or woman on woman. I'm not picky...
I think I need a poster telling me it is not appropriate to swear at people so I can feel excluded when I say GFY...
Mark and Wolffhound say it all the time. You'll just be part of the "club".
Feel better now?
I'm gonna be posting this shit every fucking day in this thread if it keeps becoming "February, let's get angry on the interweb month". Get over the cabin fever folks and let's start being civil to each other.
My grandfathers name was Harry C Schaaf. My grandmother spent her entire life signing her name, Mrs. H. C. Schaaf or Mr. and Mrs. H. C. Schaaf. Terminology is constantly evolving. What was acceptable in the past is no longer the best practice.
I LOL'd
however, i do not agree with this proposed changing of the language to fix this problem. it feels way too much like george orwell 1984 "newspeak" to me. language changes and adapts along with culture. it should not be the other way around.
furthermore, if one were to propose changes to our language to better adapt with the times, i would not be arguing for removing words. i would be arguing for adding more words that can achieve the subtle nuances in our ever-changing culture. for example, i'd be perfectly fine if we added gender neutral pronouns.
This is not the correct sub-forum for this post. Please post it in the appropriate location, lest someone get offended.
And Trigs said it better than I ever could.
FK U TRIGS!
Ummm
So you would be okay with phrasing that introduces broader, more inclusive language into our lexicon (aka, what this overall thing is doing with the gender identity / labeling / non-presumptuous traditional phrasing), yet claim the George Orwellian newspeak? Well let me just say that 1984 is the book that I have, far and away, read the most (like, once a year for the last 20 years). The concept of newspeak is one where in the language is removed / refined / redacted to limit the concepts available to people, while this is meant to expand (and, contrary to the theist-fascists) and include a higher understanding.
Fun
Mark
perhaps i misunderstood the article, but it seemed to me that they were outright saying that we should replace sexist or genderist terms with better ones. i got that opinion from the following lines:
and
(my emphasis added obviously)
the article does state that it wants to add new terms that are not sexist but it also states, as we can clearly see, that we should outright stop using these other "sexist" terms.
again, i completely agree that sexism is ingrained in our culture and language, but i do not agree that correcting this problem should come from changing the language (as they try to do in 1984 newspeak - obviously their goal is different but it's the same method of "correcting" culture by changing the language).
i didn't actually mention how i think this change should come about though. i feel that we need a more bottom-up approach starting with the basic education (as opposed to a top-down approach of changing the language - language is a product of culture and not the other way around so it seems silly to correct culture by changing language). we should still be teaching policeman as well as police officer along with teaching how the terms can be loaded with sexism.
i have always argued that there should be a mandatory cultural studies course for high school students (and a philosophy course as well
And this is even though we are generations apart.>:D