Anti-Feminist Anger

[TheKassi]

Well now we have proof that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are males who have been recently rejected by a girl.

[TerraPrime]

If every time feminism comes up where someone mentions that someone they know once took a college class on feminism that had a horrible man-hating lesbian radical feminist as an instructor and that experience turned them off of feminism for-evah, we kill a puppy, I think the world would be a better place.

[Swordfish]

If every time feminism comes up where someone mentions that someone they know once took a college class on feminism that had a horrible man-hating lesbian radical feminist as an instructor and that experience turned them off of feminism for-evah, we kill a puppy, I think the world would be a better place.

Sounds like the makings of a good drinking game.

[Shryke]

The anthem isn't changing.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/03/05/national-anthem.html

I'm shocked...

[MercenaryChef]

seeing as i only recently learned the words to the per usual canadian national anthem i truly do not want it to change. it would make amalgamating myself into the northern world that much harder on me.

but, on a serious note; you are discussing the canadian national anthem, often sang in canada, by canadians. the majority of the posts are actually by non-canadians though. they seem to be the most incensed by the word 'son'. not, the actual canadians.

i am but a male, and an american (for now), yet i will state my feelings regardless. canada is a nation that appears to have a stronger sense of equality of the genders, sexual orientated, races, etc. they have actual equality in a great many ways other industrialized nations do not. because they have this they do not seem to quibble so much over a word. it is the nations who do not possess this who have the aversion to the word and crave to change it. changing a word does not change a nation, it does not change attitudes, it does not make things sunny and sparkly for all women and all men. changes like this are not based out of a word in an anthem. we all must realize this. senegal which is one of the leaders in female circumcision around the globe currently has the motto 'one people, one goal, one faith.' they could change it to 'women; they are just as cool as dudes' and it would not actually change the way they do business.

but, once more i am just a male and just an american (for now).

perhaps we should change the word to 'sun' and imply that our northern neighbors worship the egyptian god of the sun ra. maybe then nobody needs to learn a new word in the anthem and women end up being as included and as cool as dudes!

[TrueMetis]

That sums up my thoughts exactly in a much more elegant way than I could have. Thank you.

[Flyingfig]

Because I don't think I'll ever get my first post out if I keep wanting to put it all in one post...

It's less exclusionary. That's all. It still excludes nearly everyone.

What's the scope of the everyone you refer to? Everyone in the world? Because, as a song that's supposed to be a focal point for Canadian patriotism, I don't think it's such a stretch of logic to assume that Tanzanians, for example, won't take offense for not being included in the national anthem of a country that's not even in the same hemisphere.

I just think this kind of solution is wrongheaded. Like if you see a problem and then you counter it by doing exactly the same thing, but with the focus on a different gender. So you see that your daughter is expected to play with dolls and you start expecting her to play with a truck. Or you see that a national anthem is exclusionary, so you just add to the number of people who are participating in this exclusion.

Perhaps I'm not following the scope of the exclusions but what you're describing seems to be more akin to suggesting that the line be changed from just referencing sons to sons + some other subgroup that still doesn't cover all Canadians: sons and Quebecois, for example. But that's not what was suggested. As someone (and for the life of me I can't find who or where) mentioned earlier in the thread, what could possibly be more inclusive than going from "in all thy sons" to "in all of us"?

[snake]

I'm shocked...

I hate to it say but I figured as much and I found it rather amusing that people actually thought that there was going to be a change. 'Twas much ado about nothing and yet it served it's purpose. Well, for non-Canadian's at least. :P

[Guest Raidne]

i am but a male, and an american (for now), yet i will state my feelings regardless. canada is a nation that appears to have a stronger sense of equality of the genders, sexual orientated, races, etc. they have actual equality in a great many ways other industrialized nations do not. because they have this they do not seem to quibble so much over a word. it is the nations who do not possess this who have the aversion to the word and crave to change it. changing a word does not change a nation, it does not change attitudes, it does not make things sunny and sparkly for all women and all men. changes like this are not based out of a word in an anthem. we all must realize this. senegal which is one of the leaders in female circumcision around the globe currently has the motto 'one people, one goal, one faith.' they could change it to 'women; they are just as cool as dudes' and it would not actually change the way they do business.

You are certainly right in that the Canadian anthem is an issue for Canadians, and, no doubt, that Canada has come much further on gender equality than the United States. But disregarding the specific anthem issue, it is, however, daft and against all psychology, sociology, anthropology, and linguistics have to say about culture to say that language does not matter - that it does not affect our deepest and most natural categorizations and ordering.

And, furthermore, I am really just sick and tired of these arguments that essentially amount to "duh, they are only wordz" and don't attempt to respond in any way to the point on the cultural effects of language that have been throughout this thread.

(After K's post early on in the other thread, I'm not surprised it didn't go anywhere either.)

[Insert Edit]

I'm proud to be Canadian, (a dual citizen), and I'm proud of the society that Canadians have built. One of the things that Canadians should be proud of is how we allow other opinions to be heard. Did I lay awake nights worrying that my daughter was not going to feel included singing 'O Canada?' Nope. Did I lay awake nights the last few burning with outrage at this feminist author? Nope.

We've got broad shoulders up here - comes from the weight of all the flannel.

[CelticKnight]

seeing as i only recently learned the words to the per usual canadian national anthem i truly do not want it to change. it would make amalgamating myself into the northern world that much harder on me.but, on a serious note; you are discussing the canadian national anthem, often sang in canada, by canadians. the majority of the posts are actually by non-canadians though. they seem to be the most incensed by the word 'son'. not, the actual canadians. i am but a male, and an american (for now), yet i will state my feelings regardless. canada is a nation that appears to have a stronger sense of equality of the genders, sexual orientated, races, etc. they have actual equality in a great many ways other industrialized nations do not. because they have this they do not seem to quibble so much over a word. it is the nations who do not possess this who have the aversion to the word and crave to change it. changing a word does not change a nation, it does not change attitudes, it does not make things sunny and sparkly for all women and all men. changes like this are not based out of a word in an anthem. we all must realize this. senegal which is one of the leaders in female circumcision around the globe currently has the motto 'one people, one goal, one faith.' they could change it to 'women; they are just as cool as dudes' and it would not actually change the way they do business.but, once more i am just a male and just an american (for now).perhaps we should change the word to 'sun' and imply that our northern neighbors worship the egyptian god of the sun ra. maybe then nobody needs to learn a new word in the anthem and women end up being as included and as cool as dudes!

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I haven't seen a single Canadian in this thread, or in real life, male or female, at the olympics or not, ever be offended by our anthem.

It's a non-issue.

[john]

What's the scope of the everyone you refer to? Everyone in the world? Because, as a song that's supposed to be a focal point for Canadian patriotism, I don't think it's such a stretch of logic to assume that Tanzanians, for example, won't take offense for not being included in the national anthem of a country that's not even in the same hemisphere.

Perhaps I'm not following the scope of the exclusions but what you're describing seems to be more akin to suggesting that the line be changed from just referencing sons to sons + some other subgroup that still doesn't cover all Canadians: sons and Quebecois, for example. But that's not what was suggested. As someone (and for the life of me I can't find who or where) mentioned earlier in the thread, what could possibly be more inclusive than going from "in all thy sons" to "in all of us"?

My problem was the idea that people fighting for equality would see it as a victory to be included in a national anthem. National anthems defy equality from the get go. So there's no formulation that can solve that problem.

[MinDonner]

My problem was the idea that people fighting for equality would see it as a victory to be included in a national anthem. National anthems defy equality from the get go. So there's no formulation that can solve that problem.

:stunned:

I think that removing the concepts of nationality and jingoism is just a teeny bit beyond the scope of most feminist ambitions. Just sayin'.

As for this fucking anthem thing, that may have been what started this discussion, but like a piece of dirt in an oyster, the argument has grown like a beautiful pearl. What the Canadians eventually end up singing is very much secondary to the whole idea that language is important, and the fact that you can't (or shouldn't) just assume some phrase is OK just because you'd never really thought about it before, or because it doesn't affect you personally, or because you've always used that phrase and don't want to change. The number of people arguing against this very basic concept is just baffling. Language frames the way we think (of course it does! What else do you think with, if not words?) and having to explain this over and over again - to a book-related message board, no less! - just becomes utterly frustrating and demoralising after a while.

[Shryke]

It's probably because not many people really think a single word from a chant people chant so often they don't even think about the words most of the time is effecting anyone.

[slim da reaper]

:stunned:

I think that removing the concepts of nationality and jingoism is just a teeny bit beyond the scope of most feminist ambitions. Just sayin'.

As for this fucking anthem thing, that may have been what started this discussion, but like a piece of dirt in an oyster, the argument has grown like a beautiful pearl. What the Canadians eventually end up singing is very much secondary to the whole idea that language is important, and the fact that you can't (or shouldn't) just assume some phrase is OK just because you'd never really thought about it before, or because it doesn't affect you personally, or because you've always used that phrase and don't want to change. The number of people arguing against this very basic concept is just baffling. Language frames the way we think (of course it does! What else do you think with, if not words?) and having to explain this over and over again - to a book-related message board, no less! - just becomes utterly frustrating and demoralising after a while.

I'd change the word frame with heavily heavily influences haha. So what else do we think with? well emotions for good and bad, I don't think we need to explain those really :P

Inspiration and ideas which have no words, which we might choose to put into words or might not be able to adequately put into words.

But yes the premise is correct language influences heavily our thoughts, I would also say that I don't think I've actually ever thought in actual words but it's influence is massive. I do talk to myself sometimes which is a different kind of thing haha

[Flyingfig]

Appealing to "My country's great: look how far we've come already," shows just how easily, given a hypothetical day when all the bigger issues have been tackled, people could make the argument of "But we've done all these other huge and important things, clearly those little things don't matter since we're so equal now because of these huge and important changes. We're obviously above such trivialities." Either something is unacceptable or acceptable. Relative value, timeliness, motives of those suggesting it, the tone of those suggesting it: these all, at best, sidestep the subject at hand.

It's probably because not many people really think a single word from a chant people chant so often they don't even think about the words most of the time is effecting anyone.

Right. They don't even think. But! If you stop and and think and look at the phrase, it's so easy to see how "sons" does literally exclude half the population. Once someone accepts that's true, not wanting to change it can only be based in any of the sidestepping outlined above.

Language doesn't affect how we think? I'll give a personal example.

They. Thistle.

Do these words start out with the same sound? They're both spelled with "th," but the difference in their sound is as different as Venture is from Future in that the "th" in they is voiced, like a "v" and the "th" in thistle is unvoiced, like an "f" There's a real distinction in the sounds that's not immediately obvious if you just look at the written language. Hell, it probably doesn't even enter in your mind if you "don't even think about the words." It never occurred to me at least until I took a linguistics course.

[Shryke]

Your example makes no sense whatsoever.

[TerraPrime]

What a bizarrely labrynthian argument all along.

So on one hand, feminists should pick carefully the battles because messaging is, like, 90% of the battle.

And yet, words, when viewed in isolation of context, are deemed to have no significant meanings.

What is messaging if not the use of words to persuade, to impress, and to shape how we think?

ETA

I'd also add that the inclusive language issue is not as trivial as many here make it to be. This board is riddled with criticisms against U.S. boarders who write posts with the assumption that everyone in the audience is American. That's a legitimate criticism. It's also the same issue of having the lyrics of your national anthem be explicitly one-gendered. The failure of many people to see the connection is what I find discouraging.

[Flyingfig]

As a kid, you hear these two words and if one had any conscious notion that the two words sounded different, it was probably squashed by the fact that in learning to spell them (giving you the mental image of the word as it's written) the first sound in both words is spelled the same. So we get this constant visual reinforcement that it's the same sound when they're actually, physiologically, linguistically different sounds. But we don't think about it as being different sounds because we literally don't see it as different sounds. Thus, written language affects how we think.

[Shryke]

What a bizarrely labrynthian argument all along.

So on one hand, feminists should pick carefully the battles because messaging is, like, 90% of the battle.

And yet, words, when viewed in isolation of context, are deemed to have no significant meanings.

What is messaging if not the use of words to persuade, to impress, and to shape how we think?

Because the Anthem is not messaging. It's not a political campaign to DO anything.

Changing the Anthem, however, is.

Your attempt to conflate the 2 doesn't make any sense.

As a kid, you hear these two words and if one had any conscious notion that the two words sounded different, it was probably squashed by the fact that in learning to spell them (giving you the mental image of the word as it's written) the first sound in both words is spelled the same. So we get this constant visual reinforcement that it's the same sound when they're actually, physiologically, linguistically different sounds. But we don't think about it as being different sounds because we literally don't see it as different sounds. Thus, written language affects how we think.

Uh huh. Sure....