|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
This is totally gobsmacking! Just read it. But I have to post few to comment about >Women portrayed as teachers, mothers, nurses, and/or secretaries.< Got that, Dub-Dub? If you say you're a teacher and you're a woman, you're demeaning yourself! Got that ladies? If you say you're a mother and you're a woman you're demeaning yourself. I guess you gotta be a guy to be a mother, now, or sumptin? Huh? Whaaaaaaat!  >Mexicans grinding corn< You gotta love this one, consuelo!  http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/02/Columns/Language_police_use_e.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
well this will take two lines or two hundred, but this list is not about kids in school(or anyone else for that matter) using any of these examples, but rather portraying these stereotypical views when it comes to writing textbooks and standardized tests. it's all about trying to get past the stereotypes. which I think is a good thing. he's really taking this pretty far out of context.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
>he's really taking this prety far out of context< No he's not, eta. he even points this out himself: Some of the entries are sensible, but others challenge common sense.Eve and Adam instead of Adam and Eve? Busybody? Snowman? Bookworm? C'mon!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
well, I can testify to all those examples. I will say Eve and Adam, and if I was taking a test or reading a textbook, busybody and bookworm would sound like insults to whomever they were describing. not the sort of thing we try to teach in school. and I always say snowperson.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Adam and Eve (replace with "Eve and Adam," to demonstrate that males do not take priority over females)
So then you're saying it's okay to demonstrate just the opposite then? That women take priority over men? Operating under this premise, wouldn't one have to say "Adam and Eve" sometimes and "Eve and Adam" sometimes, in equal balance, to make it right? This is a Biblical literary allusion. So then are you going to say "Juliet and Romeo"? Change, I venture to say censor, Shakespeare, too? It's the way they've come to be known as created by their authors. Sampson and Delilah. Heck, Burns and Allen (they chose to be billed that way). What about history, then, does William and Mary become Mary and William? When we say Antony and Cleopatra, as is accustomed, I think we all know that Cleopatra had the power and authority in that relationship, that Antony was her "putty" as it were. At least I always have.
Oh, and do you sing, "Frosty the Snowperson"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
yes, I would try to alternate. (frankly, talking about Adam and Eve at anytime makes me cringe-but I'm getting very close to bringing up religion ) however, look at the rest of those examples: they all list the man first. and you said yourself that Cleopatra was the more powerful. doesn't that say something to you about how we have tended to think, in the past? ceertainly, in some cases, it's done for poetic/rhythmic reasons. but I would rather be the one to make the words(and the world) change than to force the next generation to keep dealing with our old stereotypical habits. we can do better, and those of us that are so aware of the power of words should be the first to make those changes. <many big smiles-said with a light heart>
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Interesting discussion above--and it's good to keep it light.
Et', I honestly don't think there's anything insulting about being a bookworm. I certainly lived in books as a kid and was proud of being a bookworm. Now egghead? That sounds insulting to me because it gets directly into physique. I suppose you could argue the same for bookworm, but I've cozied myself down too often between the covers of a book, so I have a softer, more comfortable feeling for living there like a contented bookworm.
I don't like "snow person"--but this is taste. I just don't like the sounds there.
How 'bout this from the list:
"Hispanics as migrant workers "
Out here in Dinwiddie County we have many migrant workers who come here in the spring and summer to work with the crops. I know their labor is well appreciated and they are happy to come so far to profit their families back home. It's a way of life. I know from one of our big farmers out here that he respects their work, hires them regularly because they're reliable, and it appears to be a win-win situation. So, it would be off-limits to tell school children about their existence? (I haven't ever mentioned them since the subject has never come up in school, but am I to assume that their existence would be off-limits for discussion, reference, or inclusion in anything the kids read or sang about?) Weird.
And what about that most remarkable Bradbury short story about the boy who loved his teacher--who met with her to explore the biology of the area--and he returns to his hometown years later to learn she had died years ago? That story shouldn't be taught? And I suppose, being female, I shouldn't refer to myself as being a teacher? I guess I could wear a bag over my head so no unsuspecting child would be influenced by my stereotypical sex. I can see it now! Spring Run Elementary: The placed where all teachers, except the good Mr. Baldwin, wear bags over their heads. Ha!
And here's a good one from the site--note the last entry: eyeglasses:
Older people in nursing homes or with canes, walkers, wheelchairs, orthopedic shoes or eyeglasses
Eyeglasses! Man, that's an insult!! Don't you dare stage a musical and put a granny in that play with spectacles on her face! All our elderly characters in the play will have perfect vision! We ain't doin' no stereotypes in our stereotype-free play!
I better shut up. This material on your link, Juan, is good to take a look at. Grist for the mill.
Speaking of, I'm gonna go grind some corn now. And that's ok. I'm Irish, thrice-removed. Drat! But I'm a woman. Guess I shouldn't refer to grinding corn, huh? Well, then, I'll go play with the channel changer. I guess that's a safe reference till somebody tells me different.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 555 |
Most of us don’t like being offensive; don’t want to offend with speech that might potentially hurt and are therefore careful with what we say. This is not being politically correct, there is nothing ‘political’ about it. As I see it, it is just a more refined and humane way of living and that is what we all try to constantly educate ourselves for.
The words in the list are for the large part, not banned words. They are draconian fatwas.
I have a special rant reserved for the ones on women. By constantly focusing on women as creatures that should be treated with the right politically treated kid gloves, we caricaturise and denigrate them more.
Men and boys larger and heavier than women and girls: Well,…. they ARE. And thank God for that. And if we supposedly feel demeaned by these comparisons with men and if we feel slighted by their heaviness and largeness, pray tell, why don’t we make more efforts to look more like them. Why don’t we stop shaving our legs, for one. And wear shirts and pants and ties and big brogue shoes. Flowing skirts, scarves, lipstick, trash them all…they are stereotypical. Why doesn’t the silly brigade that banned all these words now call for the ban on all forms of clothing or dress that differentiate between the sexes? Why only words that darkly hint at improper suggestions?
Women portrayed as teachers, mothers, nurses, and/or secretaries
Women as more nurturing than men
This makes me so mad I could burst a vessel. How ridiculous is this, I ask. What’s WRONG with nurturing? It is a wonderful thing. And women as mothers…. I don’t even know if I should dignify this. It is downright abominable. I am a woman, hard-nosed about my career, non-white, occasional spectacle wearer, bookworm, and after years and years of professional training, my biggest ambition today, is to be a mother. It is my personal belief that no achievement in life is bigger than parenting a child, nurturing it and guiding it on its way to being a sensitive, hard working, responsible and humane citizen of the earth. Finally, we will all be bones and dust; we are eternal only through our children. My heartiest appreciation and respect to all the mothers and fathers on this board and may your tribe ever increase.
And all the stuff about older people: I think it is disrespectful and an utter disgrace.
Courageous (banned as patronizing when referring to a person with disabilities)
Have these people heard of Eric Weihenmayer? If that is not courage, what is? Sometimes I think I am courageous for getting through a day that was incredibly tough by my standards. What do we say of people like him then?
Huts, yachts…..[shaking head in disbelief]. These people seem to have a lot of free time on their hands. And maybe I should get on with my day too instead of dignifying them with a rant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I'll just reply to a couple of things, and then let this go, , and pick it up again at another time,  ... there is nothing wrong with being a bookworm, I take pride in it as well, but I think that it is, generally, a negative term. that is, it gets used most often, negatively. if that is changing(and perhaps it is, with schools encouraging kids to read 25 books a year, and placing lists of kids who do on a big list to be admired), terrific, then more kids can take pride in it. the other things on the list are there so that we take care in not thinking about them in only those terms. they are stereotypes, probably for good reason, but they represent a limited view of the world. remember we are talking about teaching children; about affecting their world view by the images that they are given on a daily basis, and if we continue to perpetuate the stereotypes, then that is the way that they will grow up thinking. I'm thinking of villians with black moustaches, or perhaps turbans? We need to be aware.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Many of these aren't sterotypes, they are cultural differences is all. For instance (and I'll let Connie elaborate on this more if she likes), the Mexican tradition of grinding corn for flour is a time-honored custom and ritual, especially for making tamales at holiday time, that is undertaken with much love and pride to produce just the right consistency, it's like an art. Should we deprive the children from learning that aspect of cultural diversity by negating it into a "stereotype"? In one breath it seems some folks want to stress cultural diversity, and then in the same breath they want to strip all character and individuation from people and cultures, it just doesn't make sense. I've always held Amerindians in esteem for their living in spiritual harmony with and their respect for the earth, with nature. I viewed it as a superior aspect of their culture. To mention this is now forbidden and demeaning? Is it better to say that many are now the greedy, ruthless, corporate casino moguls they've become?
And "hut"...for crying out loud. Huts are NOT "enthnocentric." It is a specific type of living quarters that many peoples and cultures throughout history, especially archeologoically speaking, have constructed with the best materials and technologies available to their indigenous areas and times...grass huts on the steppes, adobe huts in the US Southwest, thatch huts in tropical areas. (I know history is largely untaught these days, but to call these period structures small houses is just inaccurate and ridiculous). And what if a child asks about ice-fishing? Those are traditionally ice-fishing huts, not small houses. And, by omitting and banning so many paranoically deemed "negative" references, we're actually eliminating more positive influences in the childrens' realm of knowledge and development. For instance, as far as nursing/nannies/nurturing...then we can't teach them about Florence Nightengale or Clara Barton? Children shouldn't be "subjected" to Mary Poppins or The Sound of Music?
And why not just teach the truth instead of maiming the language and editing/censoring classic literary allusions? Tell them that for a large a part of history the world was a very patriarchal society where men were considered more important than woman...this was an unfair attitude...and it has changed...we now view men and women as equally important...but that's why many historic couplings, such as Adam and Eve, mention the man first. Isn't honesty always the best policy, especially with children?
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,318
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
775
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
