Posted on 07/14/2011 12:59:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A kindergarten in Sweden has prohibited teachers to use words that would indicate a child’s gender. Since “he” and “she” can’t be used, children must be defined by the neutral gender. Completely making a mockery of both grammar and common sense, Sweden has taken political correctness to a new level of absurdity.
Almost from infancy, young Swedes begin to be educated in “tolerance toward homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals.” Schools choose books based on this worldview. For example, Snow White and Thumbelina are banned because they are “full of traditional gender stereotypes.”
But other types of literature are available in abundance. For example, children are offered books about homosexual giraffes that hatch abandoned crocodile eggs so they can raise a shared newborn.
The word “it,” when applied to a human being with a gender, gives a person genderless characteristics. This politically correct vocabulary not only assumes that there is no difference between man and woman, but it also equates a person to a chair.
Sweden tries to maintain a semblance of fairness by claiming that parents have the right to remove their child from this particular kindergarten if they find the policies objective.
But this is deceiving. Even in prosperous Sweden, there are not enough kindergartens to meet demand. When faced with the decision to send their children to a “politically correct” kindergarten close to home or to go to one located on the other side of the city, parents have little other choice than to send their children to the politically correct institution.
What’s more, while overall government funding for education and culture is shrinking, funding continues to be allocated for projects that promote a neo-liberal ideology.
The zealous efforts of European and U.S. liberals to preach and inculcate political correctness at all costs has shifted from being something quirky — and, at times, even humorous — to becoming a dangerous political phenomenon, particularly when it uses totalitarian methods to achieve its goals.
Liberal ideology loves to claim that it promotes tolerance. Of course, we do need to be tolerant of people that are different in their morals and sexual behavior.
But this tolerance must be mutual and neutral. Defending the rights of a minority should not infringe on the interests and rights of the majority.
Protecting a minority becomes dangerous when that protection means that the majority loses its rights. When special rights are allocated to a minority and when government finances are allocated specifically and exclusively to promote such a group, then these aren’t rights but special privileges.
The most dangerous result of radical political correctness is when any objection to it evokes charges of racism, homophobia and intolerance. In this way, the very concept and definition of racism become diluted and devaluated.
As a result, this plays right into the hands of the true extremists, neo-Nazis and racists. This is how political correctness gets turns on its head and comes back to stab the neo-liberals right in the back.
"He" or "man" in English serves as both indicator of male gender and a generic reference to a human being of unknown gender. "He or she" is not only clumsy, it is illiterate. Use "he".
**A male animal mounting another male is not sexual amongst animals as much as it is an expression of dominance.***
You are correct. I failed to mention that in my other post.
“i didn’t know that — does it still retain differences in declination of cases for each gender? and when did this change?”
I don’t think it does, not outside of dialectal varieties which retain archaisms or something, if those. But as with the second question, judging from the good, linguistically knowledgeable response to my post above, Lentulus Gracchus might have an instructive, detailed answer. Off the top of my head I’d guess that changed in early modern times, like contemporary to Shakespeare.
Could put a whole new perspective on the term “necking”.
Nonsense, my good man. If that were true there would be no gay caballeros!
BTW, a prominent Swedish gay man saw the picture in post 18 and says he now wishes he were a lesbian. He has yet however, to pass the surstremming test.
There is also ample evidence in nature of homosexuality. E.G., Man-Eating Sharks. I admit I have no data on Swedish Crocs.
Pinging for your input...
In point of “scientific fact”, a Professor at the University of South FloriDUH (USF) published a paper on the “Male Lesbian”. Said paper was alleged to have been published a “peer reviewed” journal in Wymon’s Studies, or some such field.
The above is proof that Wymon’s Studies faculty are capable of contributing to the peer reviewed literature while in their Rubber Room. Or, it may also be proof that the entire campus is a large Rubber Room.
What is yet to be determined is who left the door to that room ajar.
In any case, publication of the “Male Lesbian” thesis says nothing good about the review board of that Wymon’s Studies journal.
The ultimate arbiter of what constitutes “correct” grammar is usage after all.
Congratulations; you agree with the eminent linguist, Noam Chomsky.
Homosexuality is not rare in chimps.
Not so. It CAN serve as a generic reference to a Human being of unknown gender - but then so can "She", dependent on the context, which is itself based upon observed (and increasingly obsolete) stereotypes. Would you call a nurse "he" if you didnt know the gender? Or a midwife?
I don’t know who Noam Chomsky is, but from the tone of your note, presumably agreeing with him is not a good thing?
Is that homosexuality or bisexuality?
You are making a point I did not argue against. When the gender is likely to be female, use "she". When the gender is not knowable, use "he". There are contexts where "he or she" is clearer than simply "he" but they are rare. Typically, "he or she" is liberal-feminist newspeak.
Using "she" when the gender is likely to be female, and "he" when unknowable might have been ok when 99% of all nurses and midwives were female, and 99% of all doctors and engineers were male, but that is no longer the case. It doesn't matter whether you approve or disapprove of that social change, the fact is that the old times are not coming back. Here and now using gender-specific pronouns with reference to gender-neutral titles is becoming increasingly bothersome, confusing and embarrassing. Using the gender-neutral plural pronoun very neatly gets round the difficulty, even if it is strictly grammatically incorrect. It certainly seems to be the way modern English is going. I'd rather that than saying "he or she" and "him or her" all the time, that's for sure.
Ah, OK.
So we agree that “he or she” is mostly unnecessary. although, ironically, right before I read you post this morning, I made another and used “he or she”, in the following context: the addressee was clearly a woman, judged by the screen name, but in my post I was making a brioader reference, which, however, was pointed at her. Hence I couldn’t use “he” alone.
I think structuring the phrase for plural is fine when it comes naturally, but people should not strain to do so. “If they participate in the raffle they should be proud” is fine. “They who win this raffle will have a nice prize” is strained and misleading, the winner is usually one person. “The winner of this raffle will take a grass mower home with them” is definitely not fine, it violates the English grammar.
In the example you gave, I would have said "Whoever wins this raffle will have a nice prize" and in the second example, I would personally have just left the last two words off. Problem solved. However, I am beginning to hear things like that last example a great deal more, and although it is grammatically incorrect, it sounds very natural to me.
although it is grammatically incorrect, it sounds very natural to me.
No. This practice destroys an important grammatical feature. Although I have to admit that would nto be the first: the English did drift into mixing "thou" and "you" a long time ago, and more recently, subjunctive "were" and "was". But neither of these corruptions were salutary either.
"Why don't you come up and see me sometime?"
That's not funny, that's sick
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.